Global Warming

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Deadeye Nothing that matters and I'm very skeptical about the findings that you quote. However those upon the left side of the political spectrum have decided that the GW problem is and American problem and they have taken very effective steps to destroy the American economy. Without cheap, usable petroleum derived fuels our economy cannot survive. As it falls so will our live styles. The change, which we are already seeing bits of will be dramatic. This is a victory for Democrats and they revel in it I'm sure. While there is a solution for this problem, because of inactivity in our congress over the last 30 or so years nothing has been done, and we all knew that this day was coming. The cure is a long way off. We are about to do some big time suffering. I'm a little upset about our governments history of failure.

The rest of the world has already signed the Kyoto protocol, which is widely regarded as a joke by fossil fuel proponents elsewhere because the world's largest producer of CO2 is not taking part in the solution. They argue that if the largest part of the problem is going to act this way that none of the other nations in the world should be obligated to do anything.

I see a pattern here.

[xyzer]

You are 'deadon', Deadeye!
In the short term our Congress can release the stranglehold of environmental barriers it has created. Exploit known ocean oil resources on both sides of the continent and in ANWR Plus subsidize oil shale development in the USA. The very fact that experts say we will be able to start pumping such fields within a few years should immediately reduce the speculative price of oil futures.
At the same time lift the shackles on nuclear power plant development. Cut the nonsense! It is safe and virtually unlimited and there is no problem with disposing of used fissionable matter! The French produce most of their power generation with nuclear power and our Navy has safely used on large ships for decades! Waste can be buried underground without danger of creating a critical mass!
Impose stricter mileage limits on new car production for a while as it did during the Carter years. Subsidize hydrogen technology as a power generator for cars! It burns clean.

The main thing is do something rather than screwing around investigating members of the Bush Administration for imagined crimes and political purposes. This Democrat controlled Congress promised much and has done nothing but criticize the Iraq occupation. No solutions to illegal immigration, or the coming Social Security(Medicare, Medicaid). Write or E- Mail you congress persons and tell them to start doing their jobs rather than insuring their re-election! Citizen pressure might get these 'dolts' to DO Something?

[thebuescherman]

Quote by: xyzer This Democrat controlled Congress promised much and has done nothing but criticize the Iraq occupation. No solutions to illegal immigration, or the coming Social Security(Medicare, Medicaid). Write or E- Mail you congress persons and tell them to start doing their jobs rather than insuring their re-election! Citizen pressure might get these 'dolts' to DO Something?

Don't tell me you actually thought they intended, even for a second, to do what they promised did you?

I disagree with drilling in ANWR though. Fox News itself had a reporter on a few weeks ago claiming that it "might" lower the price of gas by 10 cents A BARREL. Essentially, nothing. There is so little left completely untouched in this world, and we owe it too ourselves to keep as much as possible.

[xyzer]

Thanatos..posts:

The rest of the world has already signed the Kyoto protocol, which is widely regarded as a joke by fossil fuel proponents elsewhere because the world's largest producer of CO2 is not taking part in the solution. They argue that if the largest part of the problem is going to act this way that none of the other nations in the world should be obligated to do anything.

Dont you realize that human generated CO2 is not the cause of the problem. The joke is on the believers in the AGW scare! I've pointed out frequently on this thread that Global Climate Warming and Cooling is mainly from natural events. There is doubt among the majority of scientists that the human fraction of the 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere(forcing) is any more tha a secondary cause of warming! Natural factors cause it and have caused it to cool again in the last decade in spite of the increase in human created CO2. These natural factors, e.g. the sun, changing ocean currents and atmospheric moisture conditions, are virtually unpredictable yet have proven they can overtake the effects of anthropogenic warming!!

Solution ...Use our technology to adapt. Yes cleaner air is desireable and we can develop technologies without impacting the economies. And of course in the meantime observe climate conditions and their causes for a while? After all in the late middle ot the last century some scientist were prediction a very cool even cold future for global climate and yet it got warmer towards the last part of the century?

[xyzer]

I'm laughing with you buscherman..

Don't tell me you actually thought they intended, even for a second, to do what they promised did you?

They're at it again in a new election cycle. Sitting there playing political games. In this case reassuring the environmental lobby that they wont let it down!Doing little else but worrying about a war in Iraq that has wound down as the Iraqis have assumed more of their own miltary and police power. Still cticising the surge even though it worked? Thats good Democrat politics? Thats what got many of these demagogues elected and they evidently care less about us that they do for the spotted owl!

[G-rant 17]

I didn't really read through these pages on this thread, (and im sorry for repeating anything said) but im just guna say that i think that what we think to be global warming is just a natural process the earth could be going through. and i dont think that we humans can change the tempurature of the entire planet within a hundred years. and we just recently got access to satalite technology and have only had it for about 50 years, we havent studied the ice caps long enough to really make a firm claim

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Thanatos The rest of the world has already signed the Kyoto protocol, which is widely regarded as a joke by fossil fuel proponents elsewhere because the world's largest producer of CO2 is not taking part in the solution. They argue that if the largest part of the problem is going to act this way that none of the other nations in the world should be obligated to do anything. I see a pattern here.

But the rest of the World didn't have to adopt the same emission steps that we had to take. India and China were obsolved from participating, so they signed. Why not?

I we do not solve this energy crisis then our economy will collapse. As we fall we'll drag the rest of the World's economies down with us. I suppose that's what you want. A World that survives on solar power and fresh air. That can happen, but about 5.5 billion people will die in the process of making the change.

[xyzer]

Here is an interesting article (maybe because I agree with it)

CFP: Alarmists use weather to promote global warming hoax

Suggest those interested in smashing the human caused global warming myth read it?

There are three major problems with what is being said. 1. The severe weather of this spring across the Northern Hemisphere was caused by cooler weather not warmer. 2. The IPCC and the NOAA positions that severe weather will increase with global warming is scientifically wrong. 3. The records show current weather extremes are well within long term natural variability.

he article counters the alarmist media coverage of ice melt in the Arctic, as well as violent weather that has recently occurred?( Alarmist blame every weather and climate change on warming caused by increased human inputs?. It is really happening because its grown cooler in the last decade? See the chart for some proof..More violent wearther in the last cool period? How come?

This trend of severe weather is most likely to increase as the Earth continues to cool. Proponents of human caused climate change will claim it proves them right. They will continue their practice of claiming natural events as unnatural. Unless people understand the basic science they will continue the fraud and pressure politicians into even more damaging energy and environmental policies.

This is in line with the report I referenced several pages back.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Thanatos..posts: Dont you realize that human generated CO2 is not the cause of the problem. The joke is on the believers in the AGW scare! I've pointed out frequently on this thread that Global Climate Warming and Cooling is mainly from natural events.

Again, the same analogy can be made with cancer, before humans came along, all known carcinogens and tumours were naturally caused. But does that mean we can't created carcinogens and increased chances of tumour formation, simply because cancer happens naturally? No, the logic just doesn't add up.

Quote by: xyzer There is doubt among the majority of scientists that the human fraction of the 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere(forcing) is any more tha a secondary cause of warming!

Please don't lie, there is no such majority. Furthermore, I have pointed out before, 79% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen has negligible greenhouse effect, therefore, it is misleading to simply say that CO2 is insignificant as it's less than a 1% component.

Quote by: xyzer Natural factors cause it and have caused it to cool again in the last decade in spite of the increase in human created CO2.

Please give your evidence that the majority of warming is caused by natural factors.

Quote by: xyzer These natural factors, e.g. the sun, changing ocean currents and atmospheric moisture conditions, are virtually unpredictable yet have proven they can overtake the effects of anthropogenic warming!!

The current warming has been temporarily counteracted by La Nina, this very well known. Prediction of the future has no impact on the past reconstructions which show that natural factors cannot account for all the warming.

Quote by: xyzer Solution ...Use our technology to adapt. Yes cleaner air is desireable and we can develop technologies without impacting the economies. And of course in the meantime observe climate conditions and their causes for a while?

It's not simply about cleaner air, it's about stopping climate change at the huge pace which is making it very hard for wildlife and developing countries to adapt to.

Quote by: xyzer After all in the late middle ot the last century some scientist were prediction a very cool even cold future for global climate and yet it got warmer towards the last part of the century?

A few scientists were cautiously hinting at a possible cool down, but no where even close to the consensus with global warming. Source Furthermore, you're showing hypocrisy again; you've jumped on the cooling bandwagon for this decade but yet you make fun of scientists who thought there might be a cooling trend after they looked at a few decades of data!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Deadeye But the rest of the World didn't have to adopt the same emission steps that we had to take. India and China were obsolved from participating, so they signed. Why not? I we do not solve this energy crisis then our economy will collapse. As we fall we'll drag the rest of the World's economies down with us. I suppose that's what you want. A World that survives on solar power and fresh air. That can happen, but about 5.5 billion people will die in the process of making the change.

Current predictions puts it that the 1% of Global GDP must be spent annually to curtail climate change. Does that sound like an Economic breaker?
I think that you're the soothsayer, thinking that we'll bankrupt ourselves by becoming more energy efficient. Also, I'd like to ask, what's wrong with saving money? If I asked you, hypothetically, to better insulate your house for the winter so that less heating is used, does that bother you?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is an interesting article (maybe because I agree with it) CFP: Alarmists use weather to promote global warming hoax Suggest those interested in smashing the human caused global warming myth read it? he article counters the alarmist media coverage of ice melt in the Arctic, as well as violent weather that has recently occurred?( Alarmist blame every weather and climate change on warming caused by increased human inputs?. It is really happening because its grown cooler in the last decade? See the chart for some proof..More violent wearther in the last cool period? How come?

Do you see me citing any of those sensational news stories as evidence? No. I also see that you've failed to address my points from last weekend.

Quote by: xyzer This is in line with the report I referenced several pages back.

Since when does a plateau in warming caused by a known counter factor equate to actual global cooling?

[Century 25]

This today from the AP:

Cheney wanted cuts in climate testimony: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/wash...rssnyt&emc=rss

...Yep, keep 'em dumbed-down & arguing (as in, maybe, "fiddling" - like when Rome burned..? lol

[xyzer]

Hmm, Century.? Here we have an example of a political appointee(non scientist) Burnett attempting to overhype an EPA Report with his own opinions. This leads to a press "cat fight" championed by a leftist(anti Bush) news source(NYT) complaining to an intellectually deprived politician(Boxer) about a report . Boxer then complains that the VP is trying to censor something that he has a perfect right to disagree with? And then the NYTimes writes a revealing article which in fact signifies nothing?
Since when does the Executive Branch have to officially parrot the opinions of other politicians and their lackeys?? Didn't the voters of the nation re elect Bush? Isn't his staff allowed to insert their opinions in what is going on?

The 'Beltway' is getting so playground like it resembles a political circus of clownlike fools. And then some complain? The current Congress(Boxer included) hasn't done a damn thing for almost a year except maybe run investigations of its politcal opponents? Waxman now has 5 going in a political attempt to demean Bush who is a lame duck president?

[Century 25]

Ahhh.. xyz, yes.. it is as usual. Shoot the reporter. See: ABC News: Cheney Wanted Cuts in Climate Testimony

Dateline: July 8, 2008 -

Whistleblower: Cheney Wanted Cuts in Climate Change Testimony Former EPA Official Says Cheney Pushed for Cuts in Health Officials' Climate Change Testimony

Yes, Dick, where is the missing tape.. er, I mean email..?? Seems like another Dick & just another day


And:ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: Cheney on Global Warming

Dateline: Sydney, Australia, Feb. 23, 2007 -

"EXCLUSIVE: Cheney on Global Warming: Vice President's Views At Odds With Majority Of Climate Scientists"

Oilcan Dick & company may be swimming in oil.. but both he & his scut monkey, the shrub, are in a vortex - both circling the drain.

As for demeaning a lame duck.. the Bush syndicate via Cheney & Rice, Inc, are getting away lightly. I'd say the whole menagerie should face a court.. preferably a World court.. where they got their justice deserts.. lol.

As in the same as sad man Saddam was given

.

[xyzer]

Century25...You don't even address the issue...Which is..... does the Executive Branch have to make reports that reflect the views of other political or non political entities? Put more simply...that refelect the views of airheads like Boxer or Gore?

Ever hear of "Executive Priviledge"? Whose business is it what Cheney is alleged to have added or deleted during his staffing of the report? Certainly not the NYT or Century25. Executive policy decisions are just that! They reflect the views of the Executive Branch and those who serve in it.

[xyzer]

don't insult my intelligemce Pooey?

Furthermore, you're showing hypocrisy again; you've jumped on the cooling bandwagon for this decade but yet you make fun of scientists who thought there might be a cooling trend after they looked at a few decades of data

I didn't make fun of the scientist who predicted the absence of sun spots might presage a cooling period similar to the Maunder minimum, I posted the site and considered it seriously? Youve ignored it?

The so called "cooling band wagon" is the result of actual measurement. Unlike some who post here I prefer reality to nonsense and 'Gorelike' warnings that have little basis in fact! Plus ...who refuse to accept reality and prefer to rely on old studies interpreted by politicians?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer don't insult my intelligemce Pooey? I didn't make fun of the scientist who predicted the absence of sun spots might presage a cooling period similar to the Maunder minimum, I posted the site and considered it seriously? Youve ignored it?

I've not ignored it, I've asked that you show me actual evidence in form of scientific research that show said factor as the predominate cause of the increased warming. It is a basic request, and like many points, you've simply moved on and re-drew your goalpost.

Quote by: xyzer The so called "cooling band wagon" is the result of actual measurement. Unlike some who post here I prefer reality to nonsense and 'Gorelike' warnings that have little basis in fact! Plus ...who refuse to accept reality and prefer to rely on old studies interpreted by politicians?

Since when were blogs by Economists considered to be the latest in science? Are you claiming that the slight cooling/plateau in warming seen between 1940s to 1960s weren't from actual measurements? Try to be consistent!
Also, I'd like to say once more, stop trolling on about Al Gore, I've never used him or his materials for the basis of an argument with regards AGW. You always bring him back as a red herring because you don't have any substance in your arguments, just anecdotes and denial. In fact, you bring him up so regularly, I'm beginning to wonder if you're in his fan club or some cult...

[xyzer]

Here is one study on the influence of the sun. Its a few years old but certainly no older that the IPCC data bank which you use quite often?
SPACE.com -- Sunspot Activity at 8,000-Year High

I'll admit that the concluusions are incomplete.

Sunspots have been studied directly for about four centuries, and these direct observations provide the most reliable historic record of solar activity. Previous studies have suggested cooler periods on Earth were related to long stretches with low sunspot counts. From the 1400s to the 1700s, for example, Europe and North America experienced a "Little Ice Age." For a period of about 50 years during that time, there were almost no sunspots

In general, studies indicate changes in solar output affect climate during periods lasting decades or centuries, "but this interpretation is controversial because it is not based on any understanding of the relevant physical processes," study member Schuessler told SPACE.com. Translation: Scientists have a lot to learn about the Sun-Earth connection.

Before you misinterpret my post remember that you have continually insisted that the IPCC and Al Gore are right and I have continually said we really dont know? The reports are from a collatiion of studies that do not include future predictions of the e.g. amount of the suns intensity in future years? Nor do we know at what point any given number of climate influences will be joined together and produce change?

In this period of uncertainty is it prudent to spend untold trillions of dollars on the bet that human generated CO2 has the governing effect on climate change? You will note this comes under the heading of Better Understanding. We just don't fully understand the suns impact, just as we dont fully understand the effects of increasing and decreasin CO2 levels?

The study's methods appear solid: "The models reproduce the observed record of sunspots extremely well, from almost no sunspots during the seventeenth century to the current high levels," Reimer said. The research could eventually help scientists understand why the climate has changed in the past and allow for better predictions of future change. The suns activity obviously have a direct effect on warming and cooling of the earth and its mostly liquid content.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is one study on the influence of the sun. Its a few years old but certainly no older that the IPCC data bank which you use quite often? SPACE.com -- Sunspot Activity at 8,000-Year High I'll admit that the concluusions are incomplete.

I'm afraid recent research cannot concur with the proposal that solar activity variation is the cause of the recent warming, at least not in the past 30 years.

Quote by: xyzer Before you misinterpret my post remember that you have continually insisted that the IPCC and Al Gore are right and I have continually said we really dont know?

Please don't lie, I have never stated that Gore was right, in fact, I have never quoted him at all for the purposes of actual scientific debate.

Quote by: xyzer The reports are from a collatiion of studies that do not include future predictions of the e.g. amount of the suns intensity in future years? Nor do we know at what point any given number of climate influences will be joined together and produce change?

You may as well say that we shouldn't bother doing anything because we don't know if an asteroid might strike the Earth or a supermassive volcano might erupt in the next century. All we can do is work on the current data which tells us that natural factors cannot account for the majority of the increased warming of the last century. Should that change in the future, we would have react accordingly but sticking your head in the sand isn't going to make things better.

Quote by: xyzer In this period of uncertainty is it prudent to spend untold trillions of dollars on the bet that human generated CO2 has the governing effect on climate change? You will note this comes under the heading of Better Understanding. We just don't fully understand the suns impact, just as we dont fully understand the effects of increasing and decreasin CO2 levels?

Yes, it is prudent, because if the majority of scientists are right then the implications of not curbing CO2 would cost us more than the 1% annual GDP required. At the end of the day, we're moving towards a more energy efficient population as time progresses, it's just that the rate needs to be picked up. Have you got a problem with saving money by wasting less energy?

Now that we've settled the "it's the sun's fault!" point (again), which argument will you recycle for your next post?

[rez]

I can't believe this topic is still debated with such complex jargon.



carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are bad for the environment?

Are there natural events that can be bad for the environment?


What is the greenhouse effect?

please answer these simple questions xyzer.